Calorie Deficits and Sugar

Here's a link to an NPR article that includes information on a recent clinical study:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/01/344315405/cutting-back-on-carbs-not-fat-may-lead-to-more-weight-loss

The study (published in a peer-reviewed journal) it reports on took two groups of people and put one group on a low-carbohydrate diet and the other group on a low-fat diet. The diets were similar in caloric value. (I can't access the full journal article, so I'm relying on reports from people who've read the article for that last bit. It's not in the abstract, which seems like an oversight.)

At the end of a year, the group on the low-carb diet had lost significantly more weight than the group on the low-fat diet. But both groups had lost weight.

Obviously, there are a number of factors that could have caused the difference. Maybe the low-carb group was better at sticking to its caloric goals. And it's just one study, but it looks like a good one. I imagine there are other studies, but I don't have time to find out right now.

Also, I don't want to get into an argument with anybody. I heard this study discussed on NPR, and the doctors who were talking about it made a distinction between losing weight in the first place (which they agreed can always be done by consuming fewer calories than you expend) and long-term health. They were also talking about other studies that measured other health outcomes.

All I'm saying is that it isn't necessarily correct to dismiss out of hand anyone who says that the composition of your calories matters. While I believe that CICO is correct, it's not obviously impossible that your macro breakdown has no effect on the CO part of that equation.

Also, for many of us (myself included) weight loss is the most significant way to improve our health outcomes. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems associated with eating too much of one thing or another. I'm guessing that Mr. Twinkie would have eventually felt not so great.

Finally, regardless of whether low-carb/low-sugar is the best way to lose weight, you can still eat sugar. But surely no one is claiming that eating a Blizzard every day for the rest of your life is the secret to longevity.

No, but it also doesn't do anything to impair or worsen my health.

No offense but you're also 21. Your metabolism is as fast as it will ever be. Try regular trips to DQ in your 30's or 40's.

Leaving this here as I could not see it posted yet:

http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Adding these
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
http://skylertanner.com/2009/12/31/obese-metabolic-ward-studies/

http://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/is-it-time-to-stop-blaming-insulin-for-fat-storage/
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

Wow lots of bad info on this thread.... For those that eat too much sugar and still lose weight it depends on how fast you eat it. If you repeatedly eat 40 - 50g of sugar in one sitting (cake, pie, soda every day) and nothing else all day you will gain weight. If you drink iced tea and gatorade throughout the day and eventually exceed your limit you'll be fine because your liver had more time to process the sugar. Fiber matters too. Sugar consumed with most fruits almost doesn't count because of the amount of fiber that comes with it.

Of course, exercise at that level requires a lot of "fast" energy and there's nothing "faster" than a large amount of sugar and /or starch. Those are very "available" calories unlike other calories, such as more "complex" carbohydrates that must be separated from fiber or digested for some time such as protein and fat so that the calories show up in the bloodstream more gradually.

Bad info I'm reading is coming from you.

So for the past year and a half I've lost a little weight, and I've gone over on sugar almost every day of it. I eat dessert daily. I eat cake, pie, brownies, ice cream... guess I will gain it all back

It's not that simple. I'm not saying never eat sugar, just that sugar without fiber is stored as fat because of how fast the sugar goes into the blood stream. This is the basis for things like the Adkins diet. Not sure why everyone is jumping down my throat now. I'd post links if I thought people would read them.

I normally consume about 500-600 calories of sugar per hour when I am cycling. Sometimes I cycle for well over 6 hours. At 6 hours, let's say that I consume 3600 calories. You are honestly saying that during that time, I put on 1lb of fat (rougly)?

Some people like the OP are just starting out and come here for information.

Wow lots of bad info on this thread.... For those that eat too much sugar and still lose weight it depends on how fast you eat it. If you repeatedly eat 40 - 50g of sugar in one sitting (cake, pie, soda every day) and nothing else all day you will gain weight. If you drink iced tea and gatorade throughout the day and eventually exceed your limit you'll be fine because your liver had more time to process the sugar. Fiber matters too. Sugar consumed with most fruits almost doesn't count because of the amount of fiber that comes with it.

Of course, exercise at that level requires a lot of "fast" energy and there's nothing "faster" than a large amount of sugar and /or starch. Those are very "available" calories unlike other calories, such as more "complex" carbohydrates that must be separated from fiber or digested for some time such as protein and fat so that the calories show up in the bloodstream more gradually.

Bad info I'm reading is coming from you.

So for the past year and a half I've lost a little weight, and I've gone over on sugar almost every day of it. I eat dessert daily. I eat cake, pie, brownies, ice cream... guess I will gain it all back

It's not that simple. I'm not saying never eat sugar, just that sugar without fiber is stored as fat because of how fast the sugar goes into the blood stream. This is the basis for things like the Adkins diet. Not sure why everyone is jumping down my throat now. I'd post links if I thought people would read them.

I normally consume about 500-600 calories of sugar per hour when I am cycling. Sometimes I cycle for well over 6 hours. At 6 hours, let's say that I consume 3600 calories. You are honestly saying that during that time, I put on 1lb of fat (rougly)?

You can't be serious.. Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour. If you eat the sugar WHILE you're exercising things work differently. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as energy gels.

Hopefully you're just trying to get a rise out of me. AKA. trolling. But why would someone fit enough to cycle for six hours try to convince others to eat sugar? Some people like the OP are just starting out and come here for information.

You obviously don't know much about nutrition and how specific training works.

Can you show us your progress so far?

Even slow cycling will burn about 1000 calories per hour.

Leaving this here as I could not see it posted yet:

http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Adding these
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/
http://skylertanner.com/2009/12/31/obese-metabolic-ward-studies/

http://evolvinghealth.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/is-it-time-to-stop-blaming-insulin-for-fat-storage/
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

Yes insulin without excess sugar isn't bad. It's just a hormone. That's like saying pumping gas with a lit match is the same as pumping gas without one. Also, is it just me or is defending sugar on a weight loss site a bit like defending social drinking at an AA meeting? I mean if sugar were completely harmless at least some of us (not me, I"m a pizza and steak guy) wouldn't be here.

Can we maybe post one link from a major news outlet, university or government agency? Or at least something that lists or at least hints at it's sources? What are weightology.net and bodyrecomposition.com?

Why don't you take the time to actually read them (and, you know, click the links that take you to peer reviewed studies).

Also, if you think you can use an article from a major news outlet as a basis for a conclusion, I would strongly suggest you do not.

And you analogy is totally off base. Its nothing like it...at all.

I read the weightology one actually. It defended insulin as if that tells the whole tale. Like I said the difference between insulin with and without sugar is similar to the difference between pumping gas with and without a lit match. My point was those articles are written in a tone that obviously defends sugar intake as normal. It focuses on insulin as if insulin just appears by itself. It disingenuous and misleading for those who can't read between the lines. Again what is exactly is everyones point? That a calorie is a calorie? That sugar intake can just be ignored? That all sugar consumed can be used as fuel? You folks can eat what you want. I'll be a little less incredulous when we're not leading the world in childhood obesity and other food related illnesses.